HAHA! My daughter has pilfered the best of mine. Funny thing, those K-Tels are still in the crate--can't imagine why
Most influential musician/group in the last 30 years
- Thread starter skimom2
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
One that's little under the radar that I can see being around in the future is PJ Harvey. She would be an interesting subject to write about. As far as I can tell, she started in 1988 , so she should fit.
I have no issues with the vinyl I have been buying recently. As long as its pressed on high quality material it sounds fine. Not everyone is recording on digital. Foo Fighters for example did the entire Wasting Light album on tape.
New vinyl is overpriced though.
I have to disagree regarding vinyl vs. digital. A good analog recording pressed on quality vinyl is going to sound warmer and fuller than an all digital recording, especially when the digital recording is compressed into MP3 format. You can lose whole instrument tracks and all sorts of background instrumentation. The average listener is probably not going to notice but people like me do.
It's like the difference between tube driven and solid sate guitar amplifiers. Tube amps are always going to be louder, fuller, and provide more presence. Yeah, they are noisier than solid state but they sound miles better!
Tricky assignment you have there considering it's limited to artists that have only released new material from 1988 forward.
That said, you could argue Nirvana or Pearl Jam in the rock genre since Nirvana's first album was released in 1989 and Pearl Jam's was 1991. Both bands ushered out the "hair metal" era and kicked off the "grunge / alternative" phase of rock. Although, at it's core, Nirvana was just Curt Cobain's version of The Pixies.
U2 is out because their first album was released in 1980 and their best material (War and The Joshua Tree) was released before 1988.
Guns and Roses just misses the mark as their debut was in 1987.
You could argue Foo Fighters. They are more diverse than Nirvana and the musicianship is better.
If rap / hip-hop is in play you could argue Dr. Dre (as a producer). Although, I think N.W.A. started in 1986. Same with Ice T, Run DMC, and Grand Master Flash. They all started before 1988.
So, with all of that said my pick would be Nirvana if you are strictly speaking about rock music. I'd be tempted to go with SoundGarden only because I like them better than Nirvana. But, Nirvana was the first of the Seattle based bands to break out so they get all the glory.
That said, you could argue Nirvana or Pearl Jam in the rock genre since Nirvana's first album was released in 1989 and Pearl Jam's was 1991. Both bands ushered out the "hair metal" era and kicked off the "grunge / alternative" phase of rock. Although, at it's core, Nirvana was just Curt Cobain's version of The Pixies.
U2 is out because their first album was released in 1980 and their best material (War and The Joshua Tree) was released before 1988.
Guns and Roses just misses the mark as their debut was in 1987.
You could argue Foo Fighters. They are more diverse than Nirvana and the musicianship is better.
If rap / hip-hop is in play you could argue Dr. Dre (as a producer). Although, I think N.W.A. started in 1986. Same with Ice T, Run DMC, and Grand Master Flash. They all started before 1988.
So, with all of that said my pick would be Nirvana if you are strictly speaking about rock music. I'd be tempted to go with SoundGarden only because I like them better than Nirvana. But, Nirvana was the first of the Seattle based bands to break out so they get all the glory.
....plenty of choices here, but I cast my vote for that lil old band from Texas.....ZZ Top......their blend of blues and rock has stood the test of time....certainly they have fallen off in the last decade or so....but the unapologetic style and pure fun while doing it have had to have influenced many a guitarist or drummer......
The Joshua Tree released in 1987 versus 1988 is kinda picky. And many argue Achtung Baby released in 1991 was their best work.
(The Joshua Tree is their best... IMO)
I didn't set the rules for the assignment!
Anyone who argues Achtung Baby is U2's best work is clearly wrong
(I kid)I feel Achtung Baby is overproduced and was the prelude to the awful Zooropa and Pop albums
. I will say the Achtung Baby material is 10x better live. I like that album but don't consider it to be in the same ballpark as The Joshua Tree or War (my personal favorite).
Well, you know who I'm going to nominate. Rush has been creating new music right up until 2012, with Clockwork Angels. Man musicians who are, themselves considered influential, cite Rush as an early influence. But don't take my word for it...
The sound sucks, I know.
The sound sucks, I know.
Dave Grohl is WAY into analog, so I don't doubt it. Love the Foos
Or Cobain's version of the Melvins. Pixies are more punk than Nirvana ever was.
I could see U2 as an option. Though their best was earlier than the stated time, they have consistently released albums that are new-no recycles of older material. And they are copied ad nauseum, so they clearly have influence still.
For the purposes of this class, rock is any music that is released aimed mainly at a young audience. As so, pretty much anything is on the table.
I loathe Achtung Baby and Pop, but I do admire U2 for not endlessly rehashing their earlier stuff. I don't like every album by any of my favorite artists, because I tend to admire those with the guts to change.
Wow! Quite a complement of people singing Rush's praises! Okay. Maybe I can get past Geddy Lee's voice and the VERY limited songs played on radio and give them a chance. The only song I've ever heard by them and liked even a little is Working Man, but I haven't heard many.
Hi skimom2. What a fun assignment and all good choices above. I would think Tom Waits and Elvis Costello should be included. Both are highly eclectic and have influenced many young up and comers. Each has over 20 albums under their belt but have rarely been on the 'hits' charts. I think you should post your paper once finished and vetted.
He played most* of the instruments in his songs. He wrote most* of his songs. He produced most* of his songs. He arranged most* of his songs. He recorded most* of his songs in the studio. Etc. Etc. Etc.
*99%
When I think "influential," I think "emulation." Not on a "I'm copying that" basis, but the style of the originator prevails through the iterations of those who follow.
By that standard, I'd think you would want to look at who brought in music in a relatively original way in the last 30 years, and the genre has survived and expanded. And I don't know who that would be. I slowed down listening to a lot of new music, and even music in general, in the '90s.
But I'd think you could make a strong case for Prince. He was genius not only at songwriting but playing, marketing, and branding. Why does "influential" have to be constrained to the actual music? It's also the persona.
For me personally, Pink Floyd was the pinnacle that didn't top the standard - they lived outside the standard. I hit their "Delicate Sound of Thunder" tour circa 1988, and I was one of the oldest people there. The atraction went across generations. In lyricism, in musicality, and in their concerts, they did things that no one else did, or tried to do, or could do. As such, they weren't influential. They were more like unattainable. Except for cover bands, you don't see anyone trying to be the "next Pink Floyd."
By that standard, I'd think you would want to look at who brought in music in a relatively original way in the last 30 years, and the genre has survived and expanded. And I don't know who that would be. I slowed down listening to a lot of new music, and even music in general, in the '90s.
But I'd think you could make a strong case for Prince. He was genius not only at songwriting but playing, marketing, and branding. Why does "influential" have to be constrained to the actual music? It's also the persona.
For me personally, Pink Floyd was the pinnacle that didn't top the standard - they lived outside the standard. I hit their "Delicate Sound of Thunder" tour circa 1988, and I was one of the oldest people there. The atraction went across generations. In lyricism, in musicality, and in their concerts, they did things that no one else did, or tried to do, or could do. As such, they weren't influential. They were more like unattainable. Except for cover bands, you don't see anyone trying to be the "next Pink Floyd."
Geddy's voice lowered over the years. Now it's a high tenor. Try this one, the last cut on their last album...
My first choice, and I'm still considering him. I've worked up the bare bones of a few artists, and I'm seeing what kind of proof I can come up with for each.
I forgot to add that new 'artists' owe him a HUGE debt of gratitude for taking on the record industry and changing how those CONtracts by record companies are worded/offered to them. Now most newbies own their master recordings instead of the labels, get to choose how those properties are used and can profit from them instead of the record companies banking the profits. Prince didn't just haphazardly use the term 'revolution' in a band name for nothing. He also was very female empowering in his lyrics. Women were often portrayed as the more powerful force in the relationships than the man. He respected women. He was also the only man that could wear makeup, lace and high heels and steal your woman!
